RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01298
            INDEX CODE:  110.02

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was told by the sergeant in charge at the orderly room  and  the
lieutenant that he should not receive an undesirable discharge, nor
should he accept it, but if he did, he could have it changed  after
six months.  He thought  he  was  receiving  a  hardship  discharge
because his ex-wife had run up a lot of bills and wrote  a  lot  of
bad checks, that he was trying to pay back.   The colonel gave  him
the undesirable discharge  because  he  was  absent  without  leave
(AWOL) for returning to the base two days  late  after  his  mother
died.

His discharge  from  the  National  Guard  was  honorable,  but  it
disappeared after his ex-wife died.  In fact, anyone who  would  be
able to stand up for him, or write a letter  on  his  behalf,  have
passed away.

In support of his appeal, applicant submitted a personal statement.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 28  May  52  in  the
grade of airman basic (AB/E-1) for a period of four  years.   Prior
to the events under review he was promoted to the grade  of  airman
third class (A3C/E-2).

Applicant received character and efficiency  ratings  of  excellent
for the period 28 Jul 52 - 15 Aug 52.

On 3  Nov  53,  the  squadron  commander  initiated  administrative
discharge action against the applicant under the provisions of  AFR
39-17, para 3a.  The specific reasons for the proposed  action  are
evidenced by the following specific incidents:

In Aug 52, applicant was assigned to duty in the Firefighter career
field.  He was given nine months of intensive  on-the-job  training
(OJT)  for  AFSC  95130.   Twice  he  failed  to  qualify  on   the
appropriate  Job  Knowledge  Test  (JKT).   In  Jun  53,   he   was
interviewed and assigned to duty as a painter in  the  Construction
career  field.   After  three  months   of   OJT,   applicant   was
administered the  JKT  for  AFSC  55231  and  failed  to  attain  a
qualifying score.  It was  his  commander’s  opinion  that  he  was
properly classified in the Firefighter career field.

On 3 Jun 53, applicant was counseled for being absent without leave
(AWOL) three days.  No disciplinary action was taken at  that  time
due to applicant’s story in regards to personal family problems.

In July 53, the First Sergeant made a definite attempt  to  resolve
applicant’s personal and financial problems.

On 3 Sep 53, applicant was administered punishment under Article 15
for failure to go.

At 0715, 11 Oct 53, applicant was apprehended by the First Sergeant
at a motel with a companion, a minor girl, who was not his wife.

On 12 Oct 53, applicant was convicted by Summary Court-Martial  for
being AWOL between 5 - 11 Oct 53.  He was sentenced to  confinement
at hard labor for 27 days.

In summary, at each counseling the applicant presented a series  of
unwarranted  circumstances  to  justify   his   misdemeanor.    His
appearance was unkempt.  His personal habits  of  cleanliness  left
much to be desired.  His work was below standard in  both  quantity
and quality, and he showed no judgment in handling his personal and
financial responsibilities.   Therefore,  it  was  the  commander’s
professional  opinion  that  his  separation  was  warranted.   The
commander further noted that the applicant’s character was poor and
his efficiency unsatisfactory.

On 2 Dec 53, applicant acknowledged receipt of  the  administrative
discharge action and waived his  entitlement  to  appear  before  a
board  of  officers  and  requested  discharge  in  lieu  of  board
proceedings.  He further acknowledged that he  understood  that  if
his application was approved, that his separation  could  be  under
conditions other than  honorable  and  that  he  could  receive  an
undesirable discharge, and that this may deprive him of rights as a
veteran under both federal and state legislation.

On 3 Dec 53, the group commander recommended that  the  applicant’s
request for discharge in lieu of board action be accepted and he be
furnished a DD Form 258AF, “Undesirable Discharge Certificate.”  On
5 Dec 53,  the  Numbered  Air  Force,  Asst  Adjutant,  recommended
approval.

On 11 Dec 53, applicant was convicted by Summary Court-Martial  for
failing to obey a lawful order on 10 Dec 53.  He was  sentenced  to
confinement at hard labor for one month and forfeiture of $34.

On 21 Dec 53, the Numbered Air Force Director of Personnel approved
applicant’s  discharge  under  the  provisions  of  AFR  39-17  and
directed that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

On 8 Jan 54, he was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-17 by
reason of unfitness, with an  undesirable  discharge.   Applicant’s
grade at time of discharge  was  airman  basic  (AB/E-1).   He  was
credited with 1 year,  6  months  and  6  days  of  active  service
(excludes  35  days  lost  time  due  to  periods   of   AWOL   and
confinement).

Pursuant  to  the  Board’s   request,   the   Federal   Bureau   of
Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an investigative
report which is attached at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS reviewed the applicant’s request and found  that  the
discharge  was  consistent  with  the  procedural  and  substantive
requirements of the discharge regulation.  Additionally,  that  the
discharge  was  within  the  sound  discretion  of  the   discharge
authority.  They also noted that the applicant did not  submit  any
new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred  in
the discharge processing  and  that  he  provided  no  other  facts
warranting  an  upgrade  of  the  discharge.    Accordingly,   they
recommended his records remain the same and his request be denied.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant provided a personal statement and  letters  of  character
reference from his wife and a friend, along with a letter from  his
employer; letters from two law enforcement agencies and  the  Loyal
Order of Moose (Exhibit F).

___________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided  by  existing
law or regulations.

2.  The application was not timely filed; however,  it  is  in  the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.  Insufficient  relevant   evidence   has   been   presented   to
demonstrate the existence of error  or  injustice.   The  discharge
appears to be in compliance with the governing regulations  and  we
find no evidence to indicate that his separation from the Air Force
was inappropriate.  We find no evidence of error in this  case  and
after  thoroughly  reviewing  the  documentation  that   has   been
submitted in support of applicant's appeal, we do  not  believe  he
has suffered from an injustice.  Therefore, based on the  available
evidence of record, we  find  no  basis  upon  which  to  favorably
consider this application.

4.  Although   the   applicant   did   not   specifically   request
consideration based on clemency, we also find insufficient evidence
to warrant a recommendation that the discharge be upgraded on  that
basis.  We have considered applicant's overall quality of  service,
the events which precipitated the discharge, and available evidence
related  to  post-service  activities  and   accomplishments.    On
balance, we do not believe that clemency is warranted.

___________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that  the
application was denied without a personal appearance; and that  the
application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of  newly
discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application.

___________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket  Number
02-01298  in  Executive  Session  on  15  April  2003,  under   the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Robert S. Boyd, Panel Chair
      Mr. David W. Mulgrew, Member
      Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Feb 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  FBI Report of Investigation.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 1 May 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 May 02.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 7 Oct 02, w/atchs.




                                   ROBERT S. BOYD
                                   Panel Chair